Consumers are becoming increasingly savvy in their product purchasing behaviors. They use their smart phones to perform price comparisons. They select, at point of purchase, from several available options. For example, users may select from one of several different car washes available at a gasoline kiosk. And, when shopping for food or other products, consumers frequently ask the seller to try a free sample of the food or other product, such as perfume, being sold or displayed. There exists an opportunity and need to provide consumers with a greater range of options when making their purchasing decisions.
The Coca-Cola Company currently markets and sells non-alcoholic beverages through various outlets and dispensing and vending equipment. One such type of dispensing equipment is known as the Freestyle® dispensing machine, which permits customers to select from over one hundred different product and flavor combinations. Such dispensing machines are often placed in fast food restaurants, convenience stores, malls, and other venues that tend to attract consumers. An example of the apparatus, processes, methods, and systems potentially associated with the Freestyle® dispensing machine is disclosed in, inter alia, U.S. Pat. No. 8,744,618, to Peters, et al., and U.S. Pat. No. 8,340,815, to Peters, et al., incorporated in their entirety by reference herein. While such patents as incorporated by reference herein may pertain to a particular commercial embodiment, such as the Coca-Cola Freestyle® vending machine, it will be readily appreciated that the teachings thereof, as incorporated by reference herein, may, with respect to the disclosure herein, be applied to other devices, for example, Pepsi Spire vending machines, traditional bottle/can vending machines, legacy fountain machines, and vending machines for dispensing food, candy, personal care and personal hygiene items, etc. The disclosure herein is in some aspects described in relation to the Freestyle vending machine for convenience only, it being understood that the present disclosure may be applied to any product dispenser.
Frequently, a consumer attempting to use a Freestyle® vending machine may be uncertain as to which of the over one hundred offerings to choose. This can lead to not only an unhappy consumer who may select an offering that he or she does not enjoy, but also may lead to other unhappy consumers waiting in line for such uncertain consumers to make a flavor selection.
The Coca-Cola Company currently provides a Freestyle® smart phone application that may be directed at addressing this problem by permitting consumers to pre-select on the application their favorite flavor offerings. The application permits consumers to consult a selection of over one hundred choices, mix their own virtual flavors, and start adding favorite brands and mixes to the application user's favorites list. The application provides for push notifications, locates Freestyle® machines in proximity to the application user, and offers a “Mobile App Sweepstakes.”
The Coca-Cola Company, and other entities that sell products, are continuously looking for new ways to market their products and demonstrate their attributes relative to competitive products and to encourage consumers to try both existing and new product offerings. Moreover, given the well-publicized global obesity epidemic, companies that sell calorie-containing products are working hard to offer lower calorie options and to demonstrate to the consuming public, as well as governmental agencies, their efforts in this regard.
Often, sellers of consumer products, in order to increase consumer awareness of their brands, offer—sometimes for a limited time—non-standard product variants or line extensions of such brands; one example, in the context of beverages, is Mountain Dew® “Kickstart,” currently being offered by PepsiCo, Inc., in Black Cherry and Limeade flavors. But often, consumers will be reluctant to commit to purchasing a six or 12-pack of such a line extension, or even to purchase a single serving thereof. For this reason, products—particularly new products or variants of existing products—are often marketed with promotions, including free product sampling at venues attracting numerous consumers, such as sporting events, concerts, etc. Other products, such as health, beauty, and personal care products marketed, for example, by Procter & Gamble, are sometimes sampled in drug stores, supermarkets, etc., or by sending small free samples to potential consumers in the mail.
But such promotions often require hiring numerous promotions staff, and/or employees to hand out free product samples, for example, and do not typically provide an option for consumers to purchase the sampled products immediately after sampling, when there exists the greatest opportunity to make a product sale, or to obtain and/or transmit and store post-sampling market research data.
In the context of consumer products, the period of time after which a consumer first notices or is presented with an offered product and makes a purchasing decision is sometimes referred to as “the first moment of truth,” also referred to as “FMOT,” a term generally recognized as having been coined by Procter and Gamble circa 2005. FMOT is generally recognized as the few seconds after a shopper first encounters a product on a store shelf. It is in these precious few seconds, P&G contends, that marketers have the best chance of converting a browser into a buyer by appealing to their senses, values and emotions.
The first moment of truth may vary, of course, by individual, by type of store, and/or type of product. For example, some consumers take longer than others to make a purchasing decision. Some products, such as high-priced items like automobiles, are only purchased after an extended period of time, perhaps an hour or more. As used herein, the term “first moment of truth” is intended to mean a generally recognized period of time, which may comprise a range of time, during which marketers of particular products understand that they have the best opportunity to convert a potential purchaser into a purchaser of such products by appealing to their senses, values, and/or emotions. In the context of consumer products, such as health and personal care, food, beverage, and similar items, particularly those being offered at grocery stores, supermarkets, pharmacies, convenience stores, “big-box” stores, etc., the first moment of truth is typically recognized as being about three-to-seven seconds.
Recent marketing theory suggests, however, that there may actually be four “moments of truth” in the marketing context, as illustrated by the following:
Zero Moment of Truth or ZMOT: Potential purchaser recognizes the need for a product or service and may seek out additional information for it, for example by going online. This term, coined by Google, may include face-to-face meetings as well as online information acquisition. In a 2011 study, Google reported that different categories of shoppers are influenced by the Zero Moment of Truth or “ZMOT.” For example, 99% of those making travel purchases were found to be influenced by ZMOT, while only 61% of consumers of packaged grocery products and only 63% of consumers of packaged goods in health, beauty, and personal care were so influenced. Such data, in the context of consumer packaged goods, indicates a need to either provide additional opportunities or incentives to influence consumers at the ZMOT, and/or to influence consumers of such products to more quickly get from the ZMOT to the FMOT.
First Moment of Truth or FMOT: The potential purchaser makes a purchasing decision when presented with the product or service, whether online, on shelf, or otherwise. Traditionally, this moment occurred at the store shelf, and may now occur on a “virtual shelf,” i.e., online.
Second Moment of Truth or SMOT: The purchaser has purchased and used the product or service; ideally the experience supports any pre-purchase promises or promotional inducements. This is often the purchaser's first use of the product.
Third Moment of Truth or TMOT: The purchaser becomes a “follower” of the purchased product or service, sharing positive messaging about it with others via word of mouth, social media, etc. The purchaser may also rate the product or service and/or provide reviews therefor. This is often the point at which the brand's message reaches the purchaser in a memorable or reinforcing way, and was traditionally accomplished with television advertising.
One attempt to provide consumers information with respect to one or more of these moments of truth can be found, for example, in U.S. Patent Application No. 2013/0035787 to Canter. This published application provides a two-dimensional bar code at the vending machine for a consumer to link to an informational page on a website. This disclosure fails, however, to teach control of the vending machine from a smartphone or other communication device, and fails to provide any physical enticement through product sampling to a prospective purchaser of the products being supplied by the vending machine.
There exists a need to provide consumers with product sampling opportunities and product purchasing opportunities that are proximate in time and location to one another and ideally commensurate with the first moment of truth for a particular product. There exists a need to compress the four moments of truth into a shorter time span than occurs with traditional marketing methods of radio, television, and print advertising, and online shopping, and to take full advantage of the market research opportunities of product sampling by positioning the four moments of truth about a common purchasing experience and/or purchasing location. There exists a need to more readily incentivize consumers to sample product offerings and share their experiences, for example, with providers of such products and on social media, promptly following product sampling experiences.
Non-alcoholic beverage companies are struggling mightily to increase sales of, or at least slow the rate at which the consuming public is turning its back on, carbonated soft drinks and other beverages perceived as containing too much sugar, too much caffeine, too many calories, too little nutrition, or too few healthful ingredients such as juice or fiber. According to Beverage Digest, soft drink consumption fell 3% in the U.S. in 2013, the ninth year in a row of decline. One of the possible reasons for such decline in soft drink popularity is the perception that such products, particularly if sugar-sweetened, have contributed to the global obesity epidemic. And companies that sell sugar-sweetened products, such as The Coca-Cola Company, are taking notice.
One effort that non-alcoholic beverage companies have taken, in conjunction with the American Beverage Association, is a campaign to more prominently display calorie and calorie per serving information at point of sale. Information concerning such campaign, known as “Clear on Calories,” can be found at http://www.ameribev.org/files/332_FINAL %20ABA%20CLEAR%20ON%20CALORIES-%20(Calorie%20Label%20Initiative%20and%20Style%20Guide).pdf.
While “Clear on Calories” makes strides on providing industry-voluntary standards for displaying important product information on labels, vending machines and the like, it does little to assist consumers faced with product selection decisions at fountain-type dispensing equipment points of sale, and does nothing to help a consumer know, in real time, how many calories or other ingredients of a product he or she is dispensing at any given time. Moreover, the companies' commitment to display calories “prominently” for fountain beverages only applies to “company-controlled” fountain equipment. And the commitment to display total calorie counts per container on selection buttons on vending machines or, when infeasible, in “close proximity” to the specific selection also only applies to company-controlled vending machines. Such commitments, moreover, totally ignore, and fail to inform the consuming public of, the risks associated with consuming too much added sugar, too many calories, or too many other potentially harmful ingredients such as caffeine.
One way companies such as The Coca-Cola Company are attempting to halt such sales declines and perceptions that their products lead to health issues is through the sale of new, lower calorie offerings, such as the recently unveiled “Coca-Cola Life,” a Coke beverage sweetened with a combination of sugar and stevia leaf extract that yields less calories than 100% sugar-sweetened versions of the brand. A 330 ml (11.16 ounce) can of Coca-Cola Life reportedly has 89 calories compared to 140 calories in a 12-ounce can of regular Coke. Coca-Cola Life, first piloted in Argentina and Chile in 2013, is sweetened from natural ingredients rather than artificial sweeteners, and will launch in the UK in the autumn of 2014, and in the U.S. as well. Coca-Cola Life is the first new Coca-Cola to be launched in the UK since the arrival of Coca-Cola Zero in 2006, a low-calorie version targeted at men.
The Coca-Cola Company says the new Coca-Cola Life drink would help meet its pledges made under the UK government's voluntary anti-obesity drive—the so-called “responsibility deal”—and would offer consumers a greater choice. In the UK, The Cola-Cola Company is a signatory to the government's controversial responsibility deal, which aims to improve public health, and has committed the company to reduce the average calories per liter in its range of sparkling drinks by 5% by the end of 2014.
But health campaigners argue that the company is misleading shoppers, as the new Coca-Cola Life product is still laden with sugar—more than four teaspoons of sugar per 330 ml can. The World Health Organization (“WHO”) recently dropped its sugar intake recommendations from 10 percent of one's daily calorie intake to 5 percent. For an adult of a normal body mass index (BMI), that works out to about 6 teaspoons—or 25 grams—of sugar per day. Thus, even just one 330 ml can of Coca-Cola Life, with its lower sugar content, would still represent about ⅔ of the WHO's daily sugar intake recommendations. One 12-ounce can of regular Coca-Cola, however, contains 39 grams of added sugar, 156% of the WHO's recommended daily maximum.
The problem with sugar-sweetened beverages is particularly acute when such beverages are dispensed from fountain equipment or other dispensers such as the Coca-Cola Freestyle® dispensing machine. One perhaps extreme example of this problem is with “supersized” portions, such as the “Coca-Cola 7-Eleven 64 Ounce Double Gulp,” which contains 186 grams of sugar (more than 7 times the WHO's recommended daily amount) and 744 calories, all from sugar:
Coca-Cola
7-Eleven 64 oz. Double Gulp
(55 oz. soda+9 oz. ice)
Sugars, total: 186 g
Calories, total: 744
Calories from sugar: 744
Perhaps in recognition of problems associated with runaway sugar intake, the FDA has proposed new Nutrition Facts labels that more prominently display caloric content, and not just the amount of sugar, but also the amount of added sugar in a product serving. An exemplary comparison of the current FDA Nutrition Facts label and that being proposed by the FDA is attached as FIGS. 9 and 10, respectively. The current label, represented in FIG. 9, requires declaration of “Sugars.” The proposed rule, represented in FIG. 10, would require declaration of “Added sugars” as well, indented under “Sugars,” to help consumers understand how much sugar is naturally occurring and how much has been added to the product. According to the FDA, this proposal takes into account new data and information, including recommendations from federal agencies and information from other expert groups, citizen petitions, and public comments. For example, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend reducing caloric intake from added sugars and solid fats because eating these can cause people to eat less of nutrient-rich foods and can also increase how many calories they take in overall. Added sugars provide no additional nutrient value, and are often referred to as “empty calories.” Expert groups such as the American Heart Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Institute of Medicine and the World Health Organization also recommend decreasing intake of added sugars. On average, according to the FDA, Americans get 16 percent of their total calories from added sugars. The major sources of added sugars in the diet (with the highest sources listed first) are soda, energy and sports drinks, grain-based desserts, sugar-sweetened fruit drinks, dairy-based desserts, and candy.
Even if government agencies or state and local governments succeed in banning large portions of sugar-sweetened products, or require signage or labels displaying the sugar, added sugar, and/or calorie content thereof, the machines that dispense such products do not currently enable one to know precisely how many calories or grams of sugar or other ingredient or product attribute of interest are being dispensed at any given time, such that the consumer may halt a dispensing operation, for example, once a predetermined quantity of calories or grams of sugar has been dispensed.
Another way that consumer products companies, such as beverage companies, are attempting to woo consumers to their products is by enabling them to customize their product selections. For example, PepsiCo recently announced a beverage dispenser known as “Pepsi Spire,” which purportedly allows customers to make over 1,000 different product selections based on mixing different flavors, different brands, etc. The Coca-Cola Company, through its Freestyle dispensing machine, recently announced a limited time offering in which consumers can use the Freestyle mobile app to customize up to three drink mixes and pour them at participating outlets using the Freestyle app. Such customers are sent a push notification, via the mobile Freestyle app, and are encouraged to log into the app using Facebook Connect, and then scan a Quick Response Code (QR code) on one of the participating Coca-Cola Freestyle dispensers to pour the custom mixes.
Currently, however, both the Pepsi Spire and the Coca-Cola Freestyle app only permit limited customization. For example, using the app a user as a first step may select from a palette of brands, for example, Coca-Cola, Coke Zero, Diet Coke, Dasani water, Barq's root beer, Fanta, Fanta Zero, Sprite, Sprite Zero, and so on. As a second step, the user may select from one or more flavorings for such brands, for example, Coca-Cola lime-flavored cola, and may then drag the selected brand to a “mix” button to create a unique mix. Currently, the user may make up to three such selections to customize the mix. Then, in a third step, the user may select the percentage of each of the selected mixes to pour, name the resulting mix, save it, and share it, for example, on Facebook.
As an example, a user may select Coke Vanilla, Coke Zero Orange, and Coke Zero Raspberry colas as the mix selected by dragging and dropping each brand to the mix icons currently available on the Freestyle mobile app. Then by using the “Go Mix!” button the user may vary the proportion of each of the three chosen brands within limited ranges. Currently, the user is limited, when three brands are selected, to a maximum of 50% of the total mix for any one brand, and a minimum of 25% for any one brand, with any combination between those limits adding up to 100% total. As one example, a custom mix could comprise 25% Coca-Cola Orange-flavored cola, 43% Coca-Cola Zero Vanilla-flavored cola, and 32% Coca-Cola Zero Raspberry-flavored cola. When two brands are selected to mix, one brand may be selected to a maximum of 75% and a minimum of 25%, and may be varied up to an equal 50%-50% blend. But the user making such flavor mixes is not informed if the mixes are based on a volume percent or a weight percent. Most significant, the user is not informed of the calories per serving, the amount of juice, if any, contained in the fruit-flavored brands, or the amount of sugar, caffeine, or other ingredients contained in either the individually selected brands or the total mix. In the case of Coca-Cola Freestyle, for example, only the Minute Maid Lemonade and Light versions disclose that such brands contain 0% juice.
Currently, however, FDA labeling laws do not require manufacturers of beverage products to disclose the contents of ingredients contained in their products being dispensed from dispensing equipment such as the Freestyle dispensing machine. But certain decisions, such as the one by the Supreme Court in POM Wonderful v. The Coca-Cola Company, 134 S. Ct. 2228 (2014)—suggest that the FDA does not have exclusive jurisdiction over product labeling requirements. The Lanham Act, which protects competitors from misleading product advertising, may give rise to a cause of action against competitors' labeling and advertising even if in compliance with FDA regulations. And there is evidence that various governing bodies are contemplating new laws and regulations targeting manufacturers in an effort to promote greater awareness on behalf of the consuming public and greater responsibility among those advertising their food and beverage brands.
One highly publicized example of the war on soft drinks involves former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's controversial ban on sugar-containing soft drinks in larger than 16-ounce cups at city food service establishments. That ban, adopted in September 2013, was overturned by a New York Supreme Court judge as “arbitrary and capricious.” But the city has appealed that ruling, and reportedly dozens of community groups and minority organizations have signed amicus briefs in support of the ban. Even though the appellate court in New York recently denied the city's appeal, and thus beverage companies have won the most recent battle, it is doubtful the war is over.
Recently, as another example of how state governments are responding to one perceived problem of sugar-sweetened calorie-containing beverages, California Senate Bill 1000 passed the state senate, but was not thereafter enacted. Yet the bill is illustrative of the concerns many have over the health implications of food and beverage products and the labeling thereof.
The California Senate bill cites data suggesting a nearly three-fold increase in obesity rates in California over the period from 1984 (8.9%) to 2012 (25%), and that low-income communities and communities of color are disproportionately impacted by the obesity crisis. The bill further cites “overwhelming evidence” of the link between obesity and the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, such as soft drinks, energy drinks, sweet teas, and sports drinks. It states that a 20-ounce bottle of sugar-sweetened soda contains 17 teaspoons of sugar, while the American Heart Association recommends that Americans consume no more than 5-9 teaspoons of sugar per day, (which is comparable to the WHO's recommended 6 teaspoons per day). The California Senate bill cites troubling data concerning the ethnic disparity in consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages among minority adolescents in California: 74% of African American adolescents drink at least one sugar-sweetened beverage each day, compared to 73% of Latinos, 63% of Asians, and 56% of whites. The bill further cites the connection between consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and increased risk of type II diabetes, noting that diabetes complications include: heart disease, nerve damage, gum infections, kidney disease, hearing impairment, blindness, amputation of toes, feet, or legs, and increased risk of Alzheimer's disease.
Had California Senate Bill 1000 been passed, the resulting legislation would have become known as the “Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Safety Warning Act.” This act would have required a warning label to be placed on many beverage product labels for sealed beverage containers and multipacks containing sugar-sweetened beverages; the warning would have read:                STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAFETY WARNING:        Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay.But California Senate Bill 1000's warning requirement would not have been limited to sugar-sweetened beverages packaged in sealed beverage containers and multipacks. As the bill states:        The bill also would require every person who owns, leases, or otherwise legally controls the premises where a vending machine or beverage dispensing machine is located, or where a sugar-sweetened beverage is sold in an unsealed container to place a specified safety warning in certain locations, including, on the exterior of any vending machine that includes a sugar-sweetened beverage for sale.        
Currently, the FDA requires that food products sold in packages contain a nutrition label, displayed as “Nutrition Facts,” that must conform to certain visual requirements and must include certain information, such as serving size, servings per container, calories per serving, fat calories per serving, etc. The same food or beverage sold in and dispensed from a dispenser such as the Freestyle dispensing machine or the PepsiCo Spire dispenser, however, currently need not display such information. But given the heightened sense of urgency surrounding societal problems such as obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc., and the current societal war on food and beverage companies, such companies may now wish, employing the disclosures set forth herein, to demonstrate their commitment to providing full and fair disclosure of the ingredients that all of their products contain, no matter how they are offered, sold, or dispensed.
On Mar. 23, 2010, the President signed the health care reform legislation into law. Section 4205 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 requires restaurants and similar retail food establishments with 20 or more locations to list calorie content information for standard menu items on restaurant menus and menu boards, including drive-through menu boards. Other nutrient information—total calories, fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, sodium, total carbohydrates, sugars, fiber and total protein—would have to be made available in writing upon request. The Act also requires vending machine operators who own or operate 20 or more vending machines to disclose calorie content for certain items.
In response to these and other calls from consumers—who vote with their wallets—to offer more low-calorie products, The Coca-Cola Company has recently launched a lower calorie version of its flagship Coke product, under the banner “Coca-Cola Life,” discussed above.
The FDA has issued a Federal Register notice that explains how restaurants and similar retail food establishments with fewer than 20 locations and vending machine operators with fewer than 20 vending machines can voluntarily register to become subject to new federal menu labeling requirements. That notice provides, inter alia:                The FDA is considering a proposed rule requiring the labeling of calorie content for products dispensed from vending machines. Section 403(q)(5)(H)(viii) of the FD&C Act sets forth labeling requirements for certain vending machine food but does not define the term “vending machine.” The FDA has proposed that in Sec. 101.8(a) the term “vending machine” means a self-service device that, upon        insertion of a coin, paper currency, token, card, or key, or by optional manual operation, dispenses servings of food in bulk, in packages, or prepared by the machine, without the necessity of replenishing the device between each vending operation. This definition is almost identical to the definition of “vending machine” in the FDA Food Code 2009.\1\ Examples of food dispensed from vending machines may include prepackaged foods (e.g., candy, snacks, gum, bottled or canned soft drinks), unpackaged bulk foods (e.g., handful of gum, candy, or mixed nuts), prepared foods (e.g., sandwiches or fresh fruit), multi-serving foods (e.g., gallon of milk), or foods prepared in the machine and dispensed in bulk (e.g., coffee, soup, or popcorn).        
As used herein, the term “vending machine” is intended to have substantially the same meaning as that proposed above by the FDA, and to include, by way of example, but not limitation, beverage dispensing machines, fountain dispensers, vending equipment, cold drink coolers, and Coca-Cola Freestyle® and Pepsi Spire-type dispensers, as well as machines configured to dispense personal care products such as contraceptives, medications, toiletries, snacks, deserts, and other food products, but to also include such machines configured to dispense products using alternative “cashless” payment vehicles or apps such as “Google Wallet.”
The FDA's proposed Requirements for Vending Machines are as follows:
Proposed Requirements for Vending Machines
Vending Machines Covered                Vending machine operators that own or operate 20 or more vending machines would disclose calorie information for food sold from a vending machine unless certain nutrition information is visible to consumers on individual packages of food while inside the machine.        Operators of vending machines not covered (for example, operators with fewer than 20 vending machines) may opt-in to the Federal requirements by registering with FDA every other year.        
Calorie Display                Calorie information would be required to be displayed clearly and prominently.        The term “Calories” or “Cal” would be required to be posted next to the number of calories for the food.        Calorie information would be posted on a sign in close proximity to the article of food, i.e., adjacent to the vending machine, but not necessarily attached to the vending machine, so long as the sign is visible at the same time as the food, its description name, price, or selection button number. In other words, the sign declaring calorie information would be in the same field of vision as the food items in the machine.        
Such proposed FDA requirements seek to close the current loophole that requires calorie information on labels for packaged goods sold at retail, i.e., on store shelves, but not from vending machines. But such proposed requirements are potentially unworkable in situations where the consumer is given the ability to mix his or her own product, such as a beverage, at the point of purchase, in a potentially infinite number of combinations, or to pour any quantity of beverage, limited only by the size of the receptacle. And by only requiring that the caloric information be posted on a sign posted in proximity, i.e., adjacent to the vending machine, or “in the same field of vision as the food items in the machine,” such requirements invite legalistic interpretation and the potential for vending machine operators to comply with the letter, but not the spirit, of the requirement, for example, by posting barely readable signs with miniscule type font, by interpreting “proximity” in expansive ways, etc.
Given such multiple attacks on consumer products such as calorie-containing, caffeine-containing, low-percentage-of-juice-containing and/or fruit-flavored beverages, it is possible that non-governmental organizations such as the Center for Science and the Public Interest (CSPI), government organizations and regulators such as the FDA, private, third-party organizations such as the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau, state and federal legislatures, consumer groups, and even competitors, may further pressure or require consumer product manufacturers to be even more transparent and fulsome in advertising their products and the ingredients they contain than FDA rules currently require.
For example, consumers may wish to know, in the case of fruit-flavored brands, precisely how much fruit juice, if any, is contained in such products—currently FDA labeling regulations do not require this. They may also wish to know, as another example, when dispensing a calorie-containing beverage, how many calories they are dispensing into a waiting beverage container, in real time, enabling the dispensing operation to be discontinued once a desired number of calories has been dispensed. The same is true for specific ingredients that consumers may wish to manage in real time during a dispensing operation, such as caffeine, salt, sugar, fat, carbohydrates, protein, cholesterol, etc. being dispensed from a product dispenser.
If it is possible to pre-mix and dispense a customized beverage containing, for example, 25% Coca-Cola Orange-flavored cola, 43% Coca-Cola Zero Vanilla-flavored cola, and 32% Coca-Cola Zero Raspberry-flavored cola, it should now be possible, using the teachings of the present disclosure, to request, for example, a Coca-Cola Freestyle® dispenser, a PepsiCo Spire dispenser, or any other vending machine or product dispenser, to dispense a product containing a specific amount of desired ingredients and reduce or even to eliminate any undesired ingredients from the resulting product mix being dispensed.
Moreover, now that consumer product manufacturers are giving consumers the ability to customize their product mixes, it may be advantageous to give consumers the ability to customize how much of one or more product ingredients or attributes they wish to dispense.
And now that state legislatures are contemplating requiring warning labels be placed on sugar-sweetened beverage dispensing machines, such as in California, and given the correlation between America's obesity epidemic and sugar consumption, it may be desirable to require on a national level that similar warnings be displayed at the point of sale of sugar-sweetened products being dispensed from a product dispenser.
But if such warning labels are required to be displayed, it may be desirable that they only be displayed in response to a consumer selecting a product to which a warning label is relevant. Using California Senate Bill 1000 as an example, such legislation would require that a warning be placed on the exterior of any vending machine or beverage dispensing machine that dispenses sugar-sweetened beverages. But such a requirement is arguably overbroad, as most vending machines and beverage dispensing machines also dispense products that likely would not be subject to such warnings, such as unsweetened water, 100% natural fruit juice and 100% natural vegetable juice, diet beverages, milk beverages, whole fruit, etc. Such warnings might deter hurried consumers from purchasing all foods or beverages from such vending and beverage dispensing machines, to the detriment of both the consumer—who may need rehydration/nourishment at a time and place only conveniently served by such machines—and the seller of products from the vending and food/beverage dispensing machines.
Vending and dispensing machines currently employ large display panels configured to display product brand indicia, product selection icons, marketing graphics and messaging, and other indicia, icons, graphics, and messaging. As an example, The Coca-Cola Company currently markets and sells packaged products through vending machines promoted as the Coca-Cola “Thirst Station,” a vending machine manufactured by Royal Vendors, Inc., under the brand “Econo-Cool.” Such machines comprise a graphical display with a user interface that allows a consumer to select one or more beverages, and displays an image of a package corresponding to the selected product, such as a can or bottle, that spins on the screen. The spinning package may be “frozen” to enable the consumer to read “Nutrition Facts” labeling contained on a virtual Nutrition Facts label that is representative of an actual label that appears on the package to be dispensed from the vending machine. Such machines also include videos, games, and promotions such as “mycokerewards” that can be displayed through user interface (touch screen) technology. Such machines may also display signage, such as “Calories Count Then Choose.” As is known, such machines may also accept payment using coins, bills, credit card swipes, etc.
Other known vending equipment includes the so-called Diji-Touch® vending machine marketed by Mondelez International. Such machines offer touchscreen technology that allows users to customize content by the machine for emergency alerts and information, displays nutritional information by allowing a user to tap the screen to see snack packaging close up, view nutritional information, and check ingredients, and permits purchasing products with credit cards and smart phone payment vehicles such as Google Wallet. Such vending equipment also displays customized pricing based on the product selected.
Other vending machines may dispense personal care, personal hygiene, or other products that are subject to warning or other labeling requirements, such as pain medication, contraceptive products, cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, etc. Such products may be vended or dispensed from a machine specific to such products, or from machines that also include other products not subject to the same warning or labeling requirements. In either situation, the product warning or other labeling requirement might not be visible to the consumer at the time of product selection, and may only become visible or known after the product has been dispensed, and therefore after the consumer might ideally wish to have had such information disclosed in the product warning or other labeling requirement.
Such known vending machines do not, however, provide product warning notices or other product labeling requirement notices in response to a consumer selecting a product from the machine that is subject to such requirements, while withholding the warning notice in response to consumers selecting a product not subject to such requirements. And such vending machines do not query a consumer, in response to selection of a product that is subject to a warning or other labeling requirement, or that contains an ingredient, such as added sugar, in an amount exceeding recommended values, if an alternative product, also available from the same vending machine, is desired instead. And such vending machines do not enable real time display of product attributes, such as calories and/or added sugar, as such products are being dispensed.
Caloric content and sugar-sweetened beverages and foods are not the only perceived health/ingredient issues facing food and beverage product manufacturers. Another is caffeine. While there is no recommended daily value for caffeine consumption, there are published reports suggesting levels that can be considered too high or even dangerous for certain persons. And a recent CNN Health report indicates that caffeine affects boys more than girls.
Up to 400 milligrams (mg) of caffeine a day appears to be safe for most healthy adults. That quantity is roughly the amount of caffeine in four cups of brewed coffee, 10 cans of cola or two “energy shot” drinks.
Although caffeine use may be safe for adults, it is not considered a good idea for children. According to the Mayo Clinic, for example, http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/caffeine/art-20045678, adolescents should limit themselves to no more than 100 mg of caffeine a day. Even among adults, however, heavy caffeine use can cause unpleasant side effects. And caffeine may not be a good choice for people who are highly sensitive to its effects or who take certain medications. Heavy daily caffeine use—for example, more than 500 to 600 mg a day (or three energy shot beverages)—may cause side effects such as insomnia, nervousness, restlessness, irritability, an upset stomach, a fast heartbeat, and muscle tremors.
Additionally, the Mayo Clinic states, certain medications and herbal supplements may interact with caffeine. Here are some examples the Mayo Clinic provides:                “Some antibiotics. Ciprofloxacin (Cipro) and norfloxacin (Noroxin)—types of antibacterial medications—can interfere with the breakdown of caffeine. This may increase the length of time caffeine remains in the body and amplify its unwanted effects.        Theophylline. Theophylline (Theo-24, Elixophyllin, others) is a medication that opens up bronchial airways by relaxing the surrounding muscles (bronchodilator). It tends to have some caffeine-like effects. Thus, taking it with caffeinated foods and beverages may increase the concentration of theophylline in the blood. This can cause adverse effects, such as nausea, vomiting and heart palpitations.        Echinacea. This herbal supplement, which is sometimes used to prevent colds or other infections, may increase the concentration of caffeine in the blood and may increase caffeine's unpleasant effects.”        
Excessive caffeine can become especially dangerous when consumed in beverages that contain or are mixed with, alcohol. There have been cases of young, healthy consumers dying from consuming such beverages. There have been some reports suggesting that caffeine may be addictive.
Caffeine is, however, generally recognized as safe for regular consumption. Coca-Cola UK provides a lookup table and calculator that allows consumers to determine their daily intake of caffeine by selecting the drinks they've consumed and performing a daily addition step: http://www.coca-cola.co.uk/health/caffeine-counter.html. There are no recommended daily upper limits for caffeine consumption in the European Union, or in the UK, except for pregnant women. Pregnant women are advised to limit their daily intake of caffeine to 200 mg a day.
For healthy adults with no medical issues, it is generally agreed that 300 mg-400 mg of caffeine can be consumed daily without any adverse effects. For a discussion of this, see Heckman, M. A., Weil, J. and De Mejia, E. G. (2010), Caffeine (1,3,7-trimethylxanthine) in Foods: A Comprehensive Review on Consumption, Functionality, Safety, and Regulatory Matters. Journal of Food Science, 75: R77-R87. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2010.01561, available online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2010.01561.x/full. Such quantities, however, may vary depending on the individual, sex, age, tolerance, etc.
This (300-400 mg of caffeine dose) is equivalent to about:                5.2 Shots of espresso        Two 5 Hour Energy Shots        1 Starbucks Venti brewed coffee        2.5 16 fl. oz. Monster Energy Drinks        5 8 fl. oz. Red Bulls drinks        11.7 12 fl. oz. Coke        
Because of caffeine's potential negative side effects if consumed in large doses, and/or its interaction with certain medications and herbal supplements, it may be desirable for companies dispensing caffeine-containing products to provide warning labels on such products. But such warning labels are not typically provided at the point of sale of a product dispensed from a dispensing machine.